When the Tribune Attacks: Union Bashing isn’t a Substitute for Discussing the Issue

The Tribune’s latest piece of trash about Chicago’s Wal-Mart battle begs the question: Why is it so hard for the Tribune to admit that people in Chicago really want Wal-Mart to pay a living wage?

At least 5 separate times, the editorial accuses Aldermen of being stooges of labor or being out of step with their constituents. But the polls and referendums taken in Chicago show a much different story.

I don’t doubt the Tribune’s poll that 68% of Chicagoans would take another Wal-Mart in Chicago, although I suspect that just about any other national retailer would score higher numbers.

What the Tribune can’t bring itself to mention is this: People can want a Wal-Mart and want to require Wal-Mart to pay a living wage before it opens up shop in Chicago. In fact, in an overwhelmingly Democratic city, the idea that large, rich corporations have a duty to pay employees a living wage is the norm, not the Trib’s laissez-faire economic policies.

If the Tribune wants to stop shilling for Wal-Mart and start a reasoned discussion on the issue of Wal-Mart, it could start by reminding its readers of the following five facts before it attacked Chicago Aldermen of being union drones:

1. “Results of a referendum in 21 Chicago wards in support of the big-box living wage ordinance that Daley vetoed: Yes: 12,823. No: 3,163.” Reports the Beachwood Reporter.
   
   
2. Over 80% of Chicagoans surveyed during the Big Box Living Wage fight in 2006 wanted Wal-Mart to pay a living wage. “The ordinance, co-signed by 33 aldermen, has 90 percent support from African Americans,” according to the Sun Times.
   
   
3. A second poll, taken after a massive public campaign by Wal-Mart and Mayor Daley to convince Chicagoans that the Big Box Living Wage ordinance would drive retailers out of Chicago showed support by 71% - almost 3 out of every 4 Chicagoans.
   
   
4. A referendum in the 35^th Ward recorded 84% support for the idea of making Wal-Mart and other large retailers pay a living wage. In the 12^th ward, the referendum passed with 83% of the vote, and in the 49^th ward, it passed with 77% of the vote.
   
   
5. Despite Wal-Mart contributing $285,000 to anti-living wage Aldermen, 6 Aldermen who voted against the Living Wage law lost their re-election bids in the 2007 elections. Four were replaced by candidates that ran on a pro living wage platform, and one of the leaders of the Big Box Living Wage campaign, Toni Foulkes was elected Alderman.
   

Frankly, the Trib’s a proudly, openly Republican paper and I think it’s clear that they can’t see past their ideology on this one.

An open letter to the Sun Times newsroom staff:

First off, welcome to the fight! Now stop writing articles that screw the labor movement.

Note: the Sun Times staff writers are organized through the Chicago Newspaper Guild and recently voted 83 - 22 to reject major contract concessions demanded by the potential buyer of the CST. The owner has responded by announcing he won't buy the paper without them, and the SunTimes weighed in by - what else - threatening to close the whole business down.

As a whole, the media often reflects the sentiments of the corporations they work for and the class bias that many in the middle class (including reporters) have against unions. So it’s not unusual that the (unionized) staff of the Sun Times has consistently turned in articles that contain everything from outright bias against unions to the constant framing of issues in a way that’s helpful for corporations and harmful for working men and women.

Take this article about the City of Chicago budget crisis where Mayor Daley is threatening to lay off over 1,000 workers if unions don’t gut their contracts work rules and agree to what amounts to a 10% pay cut. It’s exactly the same predicament that the Sun Times writers are in: accept the boss’s demand to rewrite the contract or lose your jobs.

Sun Times writer Fran Spielman wrote several articles about the issue, but never questioned the need to choose between layoffs and pay cuts. Even worse, she gives brief mentions to AFSCME’s alternative proposal, but never asks the Mayor or others why they won’t adopt it.

Another series that shows that the Sun Times writers haven’t make the connection between the stories they write and their own situations was the Illinois State Pensions series by Tim Novak, Art Golab, and Chris Fusco.

“It's a frightening picture. It costs more than $800 million a month for state and local governments to cover their pension burden…”

It’s so frightening that the reporters never mention that, according to those figures the average pension is a merely $25,000 a year, or that state employees aren’t eligible for Social Security. So you have a few people gaming the system, while most are using the pensions for exactly what they should – a stable retirement.

Did Novak, Golab and Fusco write a sensationalized pension story that people will use for years to trash public employees unions just days before they voted to save their own union pensions? I’m betting that Spielman is hoping someone comes up with an alternate proposal to the layoffs vs. pay cut proposal of the prospective Sun-Times buyers.

Mostly, I hope all the Sun-Times writers read the comment sections on the articles about their fight with the proposed owners. It’s the usual crud: union members are lazy, they’re corrupt, be happy you have a job, you’ve got it better than me so that makes you a jerk, unions are outdated or inefficient, etc.

I hope when they read that stuff being written about them, they realize that how they are contributing to that.

I hope they read that stuff and realize that those are clearly the thoughts they’ve had – because that’s pretty clear in their writing.

I hope that they realize that what people say about them isn’t true – if a unionized reporter’s not a fat, lazy s.o.b. with a corrupt union who’s a jerk for looking to keep pensions and work rules that most people don’t have – then Jewel workers aren’t any of those things because they want their union to keep Wal-Mart from undercutting their wages and benefits. I hope they realize that a State prison guard isn’t any of those things because he wants a pension when he retires from putting his life on the line everyday.

I hope they realize that when unions members won’t accept it when the boss gives them two bad choices and says “pick one”, that those unions aren’t inefficient, outdated, lazy, corrupt or stupid.

Those union members are just like you.

Olympic bid reviewer is seeking city contract to run international airport terminal

LEK Consulting, the company that recently pronounced the Olympic bid (mostly) financially sound is competing to run concessions in O’Hare Airport's international terminal, which generates $33 million in annual revenue. The terminal obviously would see a spike in business if Chicago wins the 2016 Olympics.

To the Civic Federation’s credit, they list LEK’s conflict in their Olympic analysis. To the Civic Federation’s discredit, they dismiss any conflict of interest out of hand:

Although L.E.K. has not been involved with the Chicago 2016 bid, the firm disclosed that it has been hired by the City of Chicago in the past and has one outstanding bid pending with the City regarding a concessions project at O’Hare International Airport. However, the Civic Federation does not see such involvement as creating a conflict of interest or jeopardizing the independence of this review.

We’re a year into a recession whose major lesson is that businesspeople will miss or look past their peers’ flaws if a lot of money stands to be made. So for the Civic Federation – an organization essentially of businesspeople – to so quickly dismiss the potential conflict of interest is troubling at the least.

Whether the Civic Federation knew that the concessions project is the International Terminal or not isn’t clear from the disclosure. Since a major selling point of the Olympics is that it will generate a large increase in international visitors for several years before and after the games, the fact that LEK wants to run the international terminal is significant enough to be included in the disclaimer, at the least.

Here are three questions that anyone reading LEK’s review of the Olympic bid should ask themselves:

1. Would a company that is bidding for city business while evaluating the Mayor’s #1 priority reasonably feel that a negative evaluation would impact their bid?
   
   
2. Would a company that is seeking to run the International terminal at O’Hare believe that harming the Olympic bid also harm their own business interests?
   
   
3. Would a company that wants to bring international visitors to Chicago just be predisposed to thinking the Olympics is a good idea, regardless of whether there is an overt conflict of interest?

There are also some questions that Olympic skeptics should ask themselves before they cry conspiracy: Is LEK large enough and decentralized enough that some of their employees can critique the bid while others work on projects that would gain from the bid? Was LEK’s role in the study large enough that their potential conflict of interest would color the Civic Federation’s analysis?

It’s a shame that Chicago’s press and political leaders haven’t asked questions about LEK’s potential conflict of interest, because, frankly those questions deserve to be answered before anyone accepts the Olympic bid analysis.

Memo to Chicago Aldermen: If Aldi can do it, so can Wal-Mart

You could say the Trib scored the next big scoop in the Wal-Mart vs. Chicago story - if only they knew or cared.

Discount grocer Aldi is opening a store at 76th and Ashland in Chicago, just 2 miles from Wal-Mart's proposed store, where they have refused to agree to pay a living wage or stay neutral if their employees want to form a union to fight for a living wage. In today's help wanted section in the Trib, Aldi is advertising for employees.

So what's the scoop? Aldi is paying $12.65 to start, along with full benefits.

That easily meets the requirements of the proposed big box living wage law that Mayor Daley veoted in 2006.

The richest family in America insists on paying workers poverty wages, while just down the street, a much smaller company does the right thing. So when the media, Chamber of Commerce, and Mayor Daley decry Chicago Aldermen as job-killers, it's important to remember that the only barrier to Wal-Mart paying a living wage - and getting into Chicago - is its own stubbornness.

How we got here: Wal-Mart's Chicago story

Before she was an Alderman, Toni Foulkes was an activist for the big box living wage ordinance.

Right now in Chicago, Wal-Mart is massing a monumental campaign to win the ability to build more stores in Chicago. Standing in their way is the Chicago City Council, which has blocked the company’s expansion because of its horrible labor record. Most of the press in Chicago has treated the Aldermen like they woke up one morning as serial job-killers. But it’s actually round four of a years-long battle to determine the quality of jobs in the city.

Five years ago, Wal-Mart moved to open two stores in Chicago. To do so, it needed the permission of the Chicago’s Aldermen for zoning changes. It triggered a massive debate about the quality of jobs it would bring and whether those jobs were new or just cannibalized from other businesses. Wal-Mart won permission to open its store on the West Side, but fell short for its south side store.

Two years later, Wal-Mart spent untold amounts of money to defeat an ordinance that would require big box stores to basically match the pay and benefits of the unionized grocery stores they will be competing with. It was a nasty fight, with Mayor Daley, Wal-Mart and Target openly race-baiting, despite polling, referendums and rallies that showed that the idea of requiring large retailers to pay a living wage was popular all over the city, especially in African American and Latino communities.

The Big Box Living Wage ordinance was passed by the Chicago City Council, with 35 Aldermen voting in favor, 14 voting against, and 1 Alderman sat out the vote. Mayor Daley vetoed the ordinance and proponents needed 34 votes to override, but came up with only 31 (again, 1 Alderman missed the vote). So the Living Wage ordinance was dead, but it hovered over the next year’s Aldermanic elections like a ghost with some unfinished business.

How much would the country’s 2^nd richest company spend to avoid paying a living wage?

Well, in Chicago’s 2007 Municipal elections, Wal-Mart spent a whopping $285,000 to elect anti-living-wage Aldermen. They went 5 for 11 (counting candidates they directly contributed to).

That meant that, of the 18 Aldermen who had stuck with Wal-Mart and Mayor Daley, only 12 remained.

So, the City Council is now filled with over 30 Aldermen who had made it clear in their campaigns, or their previous votes, that they expected the country’s 2^nd richest company (Fortune 500 rank is #2 with $405 billion in revenue) to pay a living wage.

Wal-Mart’s response: La, la, la, we can’t hear you! So now we have another massively expensive campaign to open more poverty wage stores in Chicago.

Against the Wal

Enough is enough.

Wal-Mart, one of the richest companies in the world wants to set up shop in Chicago – but refuses to pay a decent wage or to stay neutral if their employees want to unionize. They cynically use the need for jobs as their main weapon against paying a living wage.

Mayor Richard Daley has cut city services, laid off hundreds of city workers and forced thousands of others to take week of unpaid time off - essentially a 10% pay cut, while sitting on a mountain of cash reserves to bring the Olympics to Chicago.

Our neighborhoods are overrun with boarded up houses while the banks we bailed out refuse to renegotiate the bad loans they made and fight against mediation programs that would help people keep their homes.

If there is one American we can look to for inspiration in this time, someone who knew what it was like to confront seemingly insurmountable challenges, it is Martin Luther King. In 1955 in one of his earliest speeches, at only 26 years old, he said:

“You know my friends, there comes a time when people get tired of being trampled by the iron feet of oppression … If we are wrong, the Supreme Court of this nation is wrong. If we are wrong, the Constitution of the United States is wrong. And if we are wrong, God Almighty is wrong. If we are wrong, Jesus of Nazareth was merely a utopian dreamer that never came down to Earth. If we are wrong, justice is a lie, love has no meaning. And we are determined… to work and fight until justice runs down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

King was up against the wall in 1955. We are up against the wall in 2009.